TO THE EDITOR OF THE ECONOMIST.
Darlaston, September 8, 1843.
Sir,—Twelve months ago the editor of the Morning Chronicle allowed a letter of mine, referring to the distress then prevailing in this town, to appear in that journal; in it I stated that for our annual wake only twenty-four cows had been killed, when but a few years previously ninety-four had been slaughtered on a similar occasion. Perhaps you will permit me to state in your columns that this year the festival, in this particular, has afforded as melancholy and unquestionable proof of distress as the last, while it bore other evidence, which though trivial in itself, is not unworthy of notice. Last year two theatrical shows visited us, displaying their "Red Barn" tragedies, and illuminated ghosts, at threepence per head, at which they did well; as also did a tremendous giantess, a monstrously fat boy, and several other "wonderful works of nature:" this year only one show of any description attended, and that, with kings and queens, and clowns, as well dressed and efficient, and ghosts, as white and awe-inspiring as ever paraded before an audience, has reaped but an indifferent harvest at the "low charge of one penny each;" while the swing boats and wood horses, patronized with such glee by the miniature men and women attending and enjoying wakes and fairs, only worked half time. The physical-force majority in the House, and their aiders and abettors, were they to see this, would perhaps laugh at the petty details, but their doing so would not in the least detract from their truth, or render questionable for a moment the deductions I make from them,—that poverty is so wide spread and bitter that the poor are compelled to make a stern sacrifice of innocent amusements; that the parent cannot exercise the holiest affections of his nature, by adding to the pleasures of his lisping little ones; that the landowners' corn law, by its paralyzing influence, is rapidly withering the great mass of the industry of the country into idle, dispiriting pauperism.
From inquiries I have made I learn that through the country generally the wakes, and fairs, and races, have presented similar features to those I have described above, so far as money goes. And in face of the distress, of which these things bear glaring witness, the Prime Minister says "that the distress has been produced by over-production." Can Sir Robert be serious when he talks of "over-production?" If he be, and will condescend to honour me with a visit during his stay at Drayton Manor, which is only a short drive of sixteen miles from here, I will show him that the opinion is fallacious. He shall dispense with his carriage for a short time, and I will walk him through all the streets of Darlaston, Wednesbury, Willenhall, Bilstow, &c., and, forsaking the thoroughfares frequented by the gay and well-to-do, he shall visit the back streets—in which carriage passengers never deign to go—of Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Walsall, and what he will witness in the course of the short ramble will "change the spirit of his dream." In Darlaston, as a sample of what he would see, there are hundreds of men and women whose clothes, made of the coarsest materials, are patched, and threadbare, and valueless; hundreds of houses without anything in them deserving the name of furniture; hundreds of beds without clothing, and hundreds of children whose excuses for clothes are barely sufficient, with every contrivance decent poverty can suggest, to cover the body as civilized society demands. In the towns I have enumerated, in fact, if the least reliance may be placed in newspaper reports, in every town and village in the country the same want prevails to a much greater extent than can be conceived by such as Sir Robert, "who fare sumptuously every day,"—aye, even to a much greater extent than is generally supposed by the above-want dwellers in large towns whom business may frequently bring in contact with those who toil. With the millions, then, who in this country must be next to naked, without furniture in their houses, without clothes to cover their straw beds, is it not the nonsense of nonsense to talk of "over-production." Enable these men to satisfy the wants of themselves and families, enable them to make their homes comfortable, and that alone would find employment for a goodly number, while those so employed would also be enabled to purchase the articles others are engaged in manufacturing. To produce so desirable a result, nothing is wanted but FREE TRADE repeal the corn and provision laws, and the shadow of "over production" could not exist: in three months there is not a man in the kingdom who would not have full work. And when we had supplied the physical wants of our population (a greater task than it appears at the first view), we should have introduced from every corner of the world the luxuries which refine civilization; the artisan building himself a house would then make it more comfortable and healthy, with wood floors, carpets, better furniture, &c.; and the master manufacturer erecting a house would have marble stairs and floor in his entrance hall, doors, &c. of mahogany, furniture, of rarer woods, and ornaments of marble, paintings, plate glass, &c.; and when all these things were procured, "over-production" would be still as far behind us as during their acquisition, as we would then work but three days a week instead of six, as with so much labour we should be able to procure the necessaries and luxuries of life.
And all nations would be compelled to minister to our real and created wants, for England is the only nation in the world incapable of internally supplying its inhabitants with food, and therefore, under Free Trade, has the command of the markets of the whole world. Then the English merchant going to, say America, to dispose of manufactures need not fear the merchant of France, Belgium, Germany, &c., he may meet there with similar goods; for the American asking each what he requires for the articles offered, is told by the former, "I will take your surplus corn in exchange, we want every year from six to ten millions of quarters;" and this latter answers, "We have more corn at home of our own growth than we can consume, I must have cash;" the American, preferring barter, will turn on his heel and trade with the Englishman; the unsuccessful applicant takes back his goods, or visits the market no more, and confines his future operations to the home supply of his own country, which in a short time, from competition and want of a foreign outlet, fail to realise a remunerating profit; trade is gradually relinquished; the people turn again to the more extensive cultivation of the land, and England obtains another customer. This is no "castle building," if there be the least affinity between the results of great things and small ones. If a grocer want a coat he will have it from the tailor who will take sugar and tea in payment, in preference to patronising one who requires pounds shillings and pence, and the owners of land in all countries will take right good care that they derive some sort of revenue from their possessions. I say, I think my premises are no "castle buildings;" neither do I think I am indulging in aerial erections when I predict that, under Free Trade, England, with her capital, and energy, and enterprise, would shortly become the world's granary, profitably supplying from her accumulated stores the deficiencies resulting from bad harvests, or other casualties of her continental neighbours.
Your obedient Servant,
G.W.G.
We are much obliged to J. Livesay, of Preston, for his suggestion, which, however, if he compare the Economist with other weekly papers he will perceive to be unnecessary. We presume we are indebted to Mr Livesay for copies forwarded of his excellent little paper the Struggle.